Mating as a group activity instead of a pair bonding one?

[Ancient Samaria]

Polyamory is immoral, anyway. I don't care if it's with the consent of everyone involved.

There isn't anything wrong with being monogamous.

"That's just like...your opinion, man." - The Dude

[United States Reborn]

Polyamory is immoral, anyway. I don't care if it's with the consent of everyone involved.

There isn't anything wrong with being monogamous.

"That's just like...your opinion, man." - The Dude

As much as I love the dude, it's the only correct opinion.

There are many cases where only one opinion is the right opinion.

[Ancient Samaria]

"That's just like...your opinion, man." - The Dude

As much as I love the dude, it's the only correct opinion.

There are many cases where only one opinion is the right opinion.

According to whom? You? I'll take that with a mountain of salt.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

It'd only reduce one reason, but there are several more for anyone to say no.

Even in the context of casual sex?

Maybe, maybe not. There's only one way to find out.

Frankly, I would speculate the variety of body types portrayed in porn are more a reflection of the variety the average guy craves, rather than of variability between guys in what they find attractive. But again, only one way to find out.

1. You say that that's the average male. Source?

I find it hard to believe the people who disagree with me on this one care that much about "sources" and "evidence." Did they need "sources" and "evidence" to speculate that I was just "projecting" my own sex drive onto others? If so, what grounds have they to stand on to claim to care that much about it now?

The converse is not as hypocritical, as the fact that I'm typing this instead of viewing porn demonstrates I'm not quite the horndog I'm characterizing the average guy as being. Webforums, by their very nature, attract the least horny of people.

Anyway, my source is the fact that the people who say I am projecting were wrong about that, and that therefore I extrapolate that tendency to be wrong to their most closely related views, including their views on the average male.

But if it's true that the average guy isn't having sex before he can afford children, then he isn't practicing what he indirectly preaches every time he uses "virgin" as an insult. It'd be like an openly gay guy using "that's so gay" as an insult, or a fat guy making fat jokes about Donald Trump.

2. Among those who have premarital sex while fertile, they usually use contraception of some form(if it is pregnancy-risking intercourse anyways).

Right, but everyone knows contraception can fail. The same couples who would rush inside if there were a thunderstorm aren't risk averse enough to hold off on copulating. For the woman, one could speculate that it's in the context of knowing for a fact she wouldn't keep the baby. The guy is either taking her at her word, or too damn horny to be held back by the risk of ruining her life, his own life, and the resulting offspring's life combined. By the number of things for which guys don't take their girlfriends at their word, I'm going with the latter.

With me unable to risk googling average horniless levels, providing a source for your earlier claims is either up to you or a lost cause. By the lack of a cited source as I mentioned earlier, I'm going to go with source-citing being a lost cause.

See above.

Protection isn't guaranteed to be perfectly effective, and the effectiveness of condoms is currently not well known. Currently, the best way to prevent the transmission of STIs is to keep sexual intercourse within the context of closed groups (partnerships or larger) that have been tested.

Note the phrase closed "groups". As in, insular communities that test people for all the diseases before they are allowed into the community at all.

Of course, people would call that "xenophobic." But that would be better than trying to tout monogamy as the solution without knowing how many people are or aren't living up to it. And it would slow the spread of whichever next pandemic happens too.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

this is what the left wants.

the left have only a few things in common. this is definitely not one of them.

[Ifreann]

Webforums, by their very nature, attract the least horny of people.

What silly lies you tell yourself.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Webforums, by their very nature, attract the least horny of people.

What silly lies you tell yourself.

All else being the same, any amount of time spent browsing webforums is not spent having sex or watching porn.

So yeah.

[Ancient Samaria]

this is what the left wants.

the left have only a few things in common. this is definitely not one of them.

Yeah, the left generally wants a progressive, just, benevolent society. Its agenda is not what it's often portrayed by the right.

[United States Reborn]

the left have only a few things in common. this is definitely not one of them.

Yeah, the left generally wants a progressive, just, benevolent society. Its agenda is not what it's often portrayed by the right.

"Benevolent": let people indulge whatever urge comes to their mind.

[Riley Gen]

What silly lies you tell yourself.

All else being the same, any amount of time spent browsing webforums is not spent having sex or watching porn.

(In the middle of the raunchiest threesome to quite possibly ever occur)
(Pulls out laptop)
Sorry, guys, gotta attend to my fictional country

[Land of The Furries]

All else being the same, any amount of time spent browsing webforums is not spent having sex or watching porn.

(In the middle of the raunchiest threesome to quite possibly ever occur)
(Pulls out laptop)
Sorry, guys, gotta attend to my fictional country

LMAO smh

[Juristonia]

"That's just like...your opinion, man." - The Dude

As much as I love the dude, it's the only correct opinion.

There are many cases where only one opinion is the right opinion.

How convenient that the only right opinion happens to be your opinion.

[DeMoNiC sAtAn]

"That's just like...your opinion, man." - The Dude

As much as I love the dude, it's the only correct opinion.

There are many cases where only one opinion is the right opinion.

Oh my! You're right, there is only one right opinion; the opinion that polyamory isn't immoral!

[Ifreann]

What silly lies you tell yourself.

All else being the same, any amount of time spent browsing webforums is not spent having sex or watching porn.

So yeah.

Very poor argument to support the claim that web forums attract the least horny people. We can say the same thing about every activity. Time spent knitting is time not spent having sex or watching porn. Time spent mountain biking. Time spent playing a musical instrument. Why should forums attract less horny people than any other activity? Why should we expect there to be any correlation at all? You have not even hinted at the suggestion of the shadow of a reason to believe you might be right.

Not to mention that there are plenty of internet forums that are about porn. So you have a false premise and no argument.

[Land of The Furries]

What silly lies you tell yourself.

All else being the same, any amount of time spent browsing webforums is not spent having sex or watching porn.

So yeah.

TBH you'd be surprised on the amount of porn forums that are out there so you're statement is in fact false web forums do attract horny individuals especially in the strict christian forums of both myspace and FB especially all social media forums.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Kind of sounds like that's a personal problem with a wide range of factors and histories that each couple or whatever needs to sort out on their own on an individual basis.

And how effective has that been thus far?

First, when it comes to Zoomers, 1/5th of them identify as some manner of queer with women making up the bulk of those who identify as bisexual.

And that's the difference between about 2/3rds of young men being single and 1/3rd of young women? The math doesn't add up.

On top of that, women are still going for older men.

Wouldn't a disproportionate number of older women be single, then? At least enough to fill the gap between "1/5 of women identifying as queer" and the aforementioned 1/3 to 2/3 gap?

I actually love the so-called friendzone. But that's another story

Right, but those of us into webforums in lieu of porn or dating or casual sex or whatever are an unrepresentative sample.

You're taking it on faith that women have been rejected? Hell man, I'm a broke fat kinda dumb guy with dorky interests and low self esteem and I've turned women down. That's not a humblebrag, despite cultural mythology dudes don't really want to fuck everything that moves. Sometimes you're just not on the same page as someone else. No harm, no foul.

Even if it's within his rights to say no, I don't want to inadvertently slander someone as doing something that others might consider foolish, and a guy turning down a woman who wants him comes across that way. I remember when I wanted my crush so badly that I cared more what would impress her than what would impress every other girl combined, and even then I thought I looked like a fool for it. But the other girls who approached me left a lot of room for interpretation on whether their interest in me was only platonic. I have no idea whether or not them being interested in more than that, and direct about it, would've ignited an interest that'd have made it mutual.

And how do you know the weight issues you yourself claim to have aren't a factor in reducing sex drive to a level that is easier to control? I have a medical condition I'd rather not specify that, despite me being skinny, gives me circulatory issues analogous to those of the overweight. But the silver lining is that it freed me up to explore the venues I might otherwise have been afraid would cause involuntary arousal.

That and tells me those venues do cause involuntary arousal in others, by the fact that the people who say they don't were the same people assuming such venues caused it in me.

I'm not sure women have quite as much of a problem with a guy being dorky, fat, etc... as they claim. I think they're quite willing to settle for that in a guy who caters to women's views on gender issues. Maybe you're one of the ones who means it for real, but I look at a guy like John Oliver and I wonder whether he really means the stuff he says on gender issues or is just trying to stay in his wife's good graces. But a guy like me has both more to gain from pushing back against women's views on gender issues, and less to lose.

Well...what you really need to do is look beyond your own boner

See above.

and into the nature and history of how different societies have formed relationships over time.

A milligram of spontaneous sincerity is worth a kilogram of statements from historians beholden to taxpayers who can't handle the truth. I said the same thing indirectly in my Peter the Third thread and I'll say it more directly now.

Can't find that thread anymore for some reason, but the gist of it is I was questioning historians' claim that Peter would on occasion refuse to make love to his own wife, because the spontaneous sincerity of how each of the sexes talks about this sort of thing (see earlier in this post, this thread, and this site) reveals males to be hornier and/or less picky. Peter's outright refusal doesn't make sense unless he couldn't get it up and would rather pretend he didn't want to than admit he couldn't, in which case you'd think historians would claim as much certainty on both as they do on said refusal to make love to his own wife in the first place.

So if you think I'm going to take historians beholden to a public who can't handle the truth at their word no matter how much what they have to say flies in the face of what I've discovered about human nature through people's spontaneous sincerity, you don't know me.

Like, did you know that in western society there was a pretty lengthy period where women were considered the horndogs who were out cruising for your fruity pebbles and it was men who had to protect their honor?

Medieval times were hardly as much of a reservoir of spontaneous sincerity as modern society with its social media, its "people on the street" interviews, etc... yes, we have powerful interests who would attempt to control the narrative, but they aren't in as much position to do so as authority figures in medieval times would have been, nor have as much plausible incentive to do so on sexual matters as modern society is. As such, the dialogue of medieval times isn't as likely to reflect human nature as modern society's.

“European society has a far longer tradition of women as sexually rapacious than our newly agreed upon idea of them as frigid,” she points out. Something for the trad wives to consider.

We no longer consider them frigid or rapacious. It's obvious they're horny. They're just pickier about when, where, and with whom.

And here we have a shining example of someone trying to 'defend' men by saying things more reductive and insulting about men then feminists could dream of doing.

A. Whether something is valid or not is more important than whether or not it's "defending" a particular sex. If it's valid enough, it doesn't matter if it's misandrous. Each of the sexes has its positive traits and its negative ones.

B. The trait I'm referring to is one that could become a positive trait if society found a better outlet for it than we have right now.

C. I'd argue "all men are potential rapists" is worse, since my own at least only imply it's her willingness that arouses him beyond the boundaries of self-control, not the opportunity to force himself on the unwilling. Sure, feminists often distance themselves from both anyway, but only when pressed on it. They don't typically take the initiative to do so prior to being pressed on it.

You haven't connected those dots. Plus your assumptions are faulty. Men cheat slightly more than women overall but seeing as you're focusing on young men and women, you got a problem:

And so do the "social sciences". They cannot reasonably claim to know what's going on in every bedroom, brothel, and back alley in the world. Even the NSA doesn't claim to cast that wide a net.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

All else being the same, any amount of time spent browsing webforums is not spent having sex or watching porn.

So yeah.

Very poor argument to support the claim that web forums attract the least horny people. We can say the same thing about every activity. Time spent knitting is time not spent having sex or watching porn. Time spent mountain biking. Time spent playing a musical instrument. Why should forums attract less horny people than any other activity? Why should we expect there to be any correlation at all? You have not even hinted at the suggestion of the shadow of a reason to believe you might be right.

Not to mention that there are plenty of internet forums that are about porn. So you have a false premise and no argument.

A. Guys aren't known for knitting.

B. Guys who mountain bike or play musical instruments might be doing it to impress the ladies for all we know.

[Ifreann]

They cannot reasonably claim to know what's going on in every bedroom, brothel, and back alley in the world. Even the NSA doesn't claim to cast that wide a net.

I think that this is a very funny thing for you to say when you presume to know about the sex lives of every person who browses internet forums.

[Ifreann]

Very poor argument to support the claim that web forums attract the least horny people. We can say the same thing about every activity. Time spent knitting is time not spent having sex or watching porn. Time spent mountain biking. Time spent playing a musical instrument. Why should forums attract less horny people than any other activity? Why should we expect there to be any correlation at all? You have not even hinted at the suggestion of the shadow of a reason to believe you might be right.

Not to mention that there are plenty of internet forums that are about porn. So you have a false premise and no argument.

A. Guys aren't known for knitting.

B. Guys who mountain bike or play musical instruments might be doing it to impress the ladies for all we know.

Your claim was about people, not guys.

Webforums, by their very nature, attract the least horny of people.

So not only have you not made any argument to support this claim, you don't seem to actually understand what it is you have claimed by saying this.

[El Lazaro]

Good for chimps if that’s what works for them, but humans are more than just overgrown monkeys.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

They cannot reasonably claim to know what's going on in every bedroom, brothel, and back alley in the world. Even the NSA doesn't claim to cast that wide a net.

I think that this is a very funny thing for you to say when you presume to know about the sex lives of every person who browses internet forums.

Only in comparison to everybody else. One half of the population is horny enough to risk ruining their own lives, her life, and the life of their resulting offspring by having sex before they can afford kids. The other half might be as horny; possibly more so; but either way had a reputation amongst themselves and the other half for being choosy about when, where, and with whom.

Webforum users, by comparison, are non-horny enough to prioritize our mere thought experiments over such indulgences in pleasure. At least some of the time, anyway.

The stat cited by CTOAN, by comparison, claimed precision on how frequent adultery is, and even correlates it with age. It's possible adultery is less common, it's possible it's more so. I'd speculate more so on account of the aforementioned risks even the most "monogamous" of couples take under the influence of arousal. But social sciences beholden to a public that can't handle the truth have no incentive to tell it like it is, and every incentive not to.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Your claim was about people, not guys.

A woman who participates in webforums has decided that she doesn't want to spend all her spare time having sex. Maybe it means she has a low sex drive, maybe it means she doesn't consider it worth the risks herself, but make no mistake, she could easily entice the boys into as much of it as she wants.

A man who participates in webforums might have either of those reasons, but "not worth the risks" means more for a guy than a woman, since he risks STDs as much as she does, but it's also not up to him whether or not she aborts if pregnant, nor does he know as well as she does what she would do under that circumstance.

[Ifreann]

I think that this is a very funny thing for you to say when you presume to know about the sex lives of every person who browses internet forums.

Only in comparison to everybody else. One half of the population is horny enough to risk ruining their own lives, her life, and the life of their resulting offspring by having sex before they can afford kids. The other half might be as horny; possibly more so; but either way had a reputation amongst themselves and the other half for being choosy about when, where, and with whom.

Webforum users, by comparison, are non-horny enough to prioritize our mere thought experiments over such indulgences in pleasure. At least some of the time, anyway.

Here you are comparing one half of the population, men, with web forum users, as if these are distinct groups. There are men, and there are web forum users. One group is horny, the other group is not. Utter gibberish, completely disconnected from reality. It's wild how you refuse to acknowledge the world around you. Like, surely you have been around here long enough to be aware that there are posters who are married with children. The most prolific poster on this forum is married to another poster on this forum. They met through this forum.

[Land of The Furries]

Only in comparison to everybody else. One half of the population is horny enough to risk ruining their own lives, her life, and the life of their resulting offspring by having sex before they can afford kids. The other half might be as horny; possibly more so; but either way had a reputation amongst themselves and the other half for being choosy about when, where, and with whom.

Webforum users, by comparison, are non-horny enough to prioritize our mere thought experiments over such indulgences in pleasure. At least some of the time, anyway.

Here you are comparing one half of the population, men, with web forum users, as if these are distinct groups. There are men, and there are web forum users. One group is horny, the other group is not. Utter gibberish, completely disconnected from reality. It's wild how you refuse to acknowledge the world around you. Like, surely you have been around here long enough to be aware that there are posters who are married with children. The most prolific poster on this forum is married to another poster on this forum. They met through this forum.

As I've stated before his claims are in fact false and has obviously never hung around any "normal" forum after the mods and owners are gone. Boy oh boy the type of sh*t I've heard and read on the forums of most social media platforms.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Here you are comparing one half of the population, men, with web forum users,

How is it not obvious that "might be as horny; possibly more so; but either way had a reputation amongst themselves and the other half for being choosy about when, where, and with whom" is referring to women as a whole, on and off webforums, not to webforum users male and female?

[Like, surely you have been around here long enough to be aware that there are posters who are married with children.

Who claim to be. They can no more prove it than I can prove having in the past been too fixated on my crushes to go for whichever other girls I myself perceived as being interested in me back then. Sure, I'm not entitled to be taken at my word... but neither are other NSers.